Appeal No. 2005-2211 Παγε 9
Application No. 10/715,002
based solely on the indefiniteness of the claimed subject matter, and does not reflect on
the adequacy of the prior art evidence applied in support of the rejection.
The remaining independent claims on appeal which stand rejected on prior art
are claims 1, 9, 16 and 21. Claims 1 and 9 each recite an energy absorber having a top
horizontal section defined by a top wall and an upper-mid wall connected by an upper-
front wall and having a bottom horizontal section defined by a bottom wall and a lower-
mid wall connected by a lower-front wall. Claims 16 and 21 each recite an energy
absorber including at least one section having parallel upper and lower walls and having
a main front wall wherein, upon impact, the upper and lower walls flex with a
parallelogram motion. Unlike appellant's claimed device, each of the top and bottom
horizontal sections (legs 34) of Scrivo is comprised of a solid body rather than an upper
and lower wall connected by a front wall (see brief, page 15, and reply brief, page 8).
Accordingly, the above-discussed limitations of claims 1 and 9 are neither met by Scrivo
nor addressed by the examiner's application of additional references to Sturrus,
Hamaya and Glance. As for claims 16 and 21, even assuming the examiner is correct
that each of the legs 34 of Scrivo's energy absorber will deflect in the same manner as
each of appellant's top and bottom nose portions, i.e., with the front surface shifting
vertically and the top and bottom surfaces bending or inclining commensurate with the
shift so as to remain substantially parallel (i.e., a "parallelogram motion"), each leg 34,
as pointed out above, is made of a solid body, not parallel upper and lower walls as
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007